Integrated Imaging in Genitourinary Oncology: PET/CT Imaging

  • Gerald Antoch


Malignant tumors are the second most common cause of death in the western world [1]. Based on the assumption that patients’ prognoses can be improved by the adoption of stage-adapted therapy, accurate clinical and radiological tumor staging must be considered as essential when assessing primary tumors and recurrent disease. In addition, different imaging procedures are used for therapy response assessment in patients undergoing treatment for malignant disease. For both, tumor staging and therapy response assessment, morphological and functional imaging procedures are available; however, these have well-known limitations in their diagnostic accuracy. Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US) provide mainly morphological information on the tumor and its potential metastases, but the lack of functional data has been shown to hamper accurate assessment of local lymph node involvement [2, 3]. Therapy response assessment is mainly based on lesion size, which nonetheless has been shown to be an insensitive indicator of response, at least in the initial phase of tumor treatment.


Prostate Cancer Positron Emission Tomography Ovarian Cancer Cervical Cancer Integrate Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002) Cancer statistics 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52:23–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haberkorn U, Schoenberg SO (2001) Imaging of lung cancer with CT MRI and PET. Lung Cancer 34 Suppl 3:S13–S23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toloza EM, Harpole L, McCrory DC (2003) Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence. Chest 123(Suppl 1):S137–S146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams S, Baum RP, Stuchensen T et al (1998) Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT MRI US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1255–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus JE et al (1999) Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology 212:803–809PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Tinteren H, Hoekstra O, Smit E et al (2002) Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1388–1393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A et al (2003) Cancer statistics 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A et al (2004) Kinetics of [(11)C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:317–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H et al (2005) Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:742–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH et al (2003) Preoperative staging of pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer by 11C-choline PET. J Nucl Med 44:331–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fricke E, Machtens S, Hofmann M, Van Den J (2003) Positron emission tomography with 11C-acetate and 18F-FDG in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:607–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Albers P, Bender H, Yilmaz H, Schoeneich G (1999) Positron emission tomography in the clinical staging of patients with Stage I and II testicular germ cell tumors. Urology 53:808–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al (2008) European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 53:478–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon RP et al (2008) European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 53:497–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C et al (2004) 2-18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol 22:1034–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis DA, Tann M, Kesler K et al (2006) Positron emission tomography scans in postchemotherapy seminoma patients with residual masses: a retrospective review from Indiana University Hospital. J Clin Oncol 24:e54–e55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stephens AW, Gonin R, Hutchins GD et al (1996) Positron emission tomography evaluation of residual radiographic abnormalities in postchemotherapy germ cell tumor patients. J Clin Oncol 14:1637–1641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR et al (2000) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of germ cell tumours at relapse. Br J Cancer 83:863–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawahara K, Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T et al (2004) Evaluation of positron emission tomography with tracer 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in addition to magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in selected women after ultrasonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:505–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Picchio M, Sironi S, Messa C et al (2003) Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment. Q J Nucl Med 47:77–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK et al (2003) Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol 90:519–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M et al (2006) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 238:272–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JD, Dehdashti F, Herzog T et al (2005) Preoperative lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma by [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. Cancer 104:2484–2491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS et al (2006) Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer 106:914–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ et al (2007) Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 104:529–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F, Herzog TJ et al (2004) Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol 95:546–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Antoch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and NeuroradiologyUniversity Hospital Essen, University at Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations